User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200510214412/@comment-45692830-20200511001712: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Again. I'm in favor of validity. I'm simply attempting to explain the argument against as best I understand it. If somebody else were to want to chime in against validity I would appreciate it. | Again. I'm in favor of validity. I'm simply attempting to explain the argument against as best I understand it. If somebody else were to want to chime in against validity I would appreciate it. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
Perhaps, if I'm again going to be playing devil's advocate here, this is where we draw the line, at stories that reference the wiki itself. Or even if we don't draw the line here, perhaps we should have a policy in place concerning how we handle this issue. And since it ''is'' the first time we've seen it, why not discuss that issue here? | Perhaps, if I'm again going to be playing devil's advocate here, this is where we draw the line, at stories that reference the wiki itself. Or even if we don't draw the line here, perhaps we should have a policy in place concerning how we handle this issue. And since it ''is'' the first time we've seen it, why not discuss that issue here? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200510214412-45692830/20200511001712-45692830]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:20, 27 April 2023
Again. I'm in favor of validity. I'm simply attempting to explain the argument against as best I understand it. If somebody else were to want to chime in against validity I would appreciate it.
That said, perhaps the related discussion of "should we create a page for this website from an in universe perspective" is illuminating to the discussion. Doing so could (but does not necessarily) open up a can of worms, such as if other stories reference it and talk about articles being on it us sort of having to create an entire "meta wiki". (As unlikely as this is.)
Perhaps, if I'm again going to be playing devil's advocate here, this is where we draw the line, at stories that reference the wiki itself. Or even if we don't draw the line here, perhaps we should have a policy in place concerning how we handle this issue. And since it is the first time we've seen it, why not discuss that issue here?
